The whole problem with this debate is the assumption that there are only two possible answers, and one is correct. The assumptions states that either life arose and continues because of chance and biochemical reactions (for which there is no proof, and much against), or failing this, that life was created by an unkowable, mystic omniscient God (for which there is no proof, and much against).
The truth is that we are as much in the dark about the origins and continuance of life now as we have ever been. Molecular and sub-atomic science have given us sufficient knowledge to blow Darwin and his hangers-on out of the water. On the other hand, nothing has been discovered which demonstrates the presence of a mystical being.
So, we just dont know. Yet. Until the dogmatists in science give up on Evolution (which they never will while running scared from the label "creationist"), we will never add to our knowledge in order to find out.
A proposition is made. The proposition is heard. Neither of these can take place without intelligence or design. Have you ever seen intelligence or design without someone behind them?
The universe, without even speaking, per se, is constantly making propositions to the sense of every living thing, but especially to the reason and senses of that creature capable of creating such insignificant objects as an Apple G5, which of itself cannot compare to its creator's own mind.
No apologies here for arguing from the standpoint of incredulity. There is no logical or moral reason to count mathematical probabilities or improbabilities as either unfactual or insignificant.
One can deny intelligent design as an agent in the creation and preservation of the universe, but it takes an animosity; a penchant for all things material; a type of reason no more worthy of acceptation than the next myth. I hardly see why such things should merit the current mediocrities forced upon classroom education.